Caseflicks

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine • 1991

Herzog v. Irace

594 A.2d 1106 | 1991 Me. LEXIS 199

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, a client may validly assign future lawsuit proceeds to a third party, and an attorney with notice must honor that assignment rather than follow the client's later contrary instruction.

Background

Gary Jones retained attorneys Anthony Irace and Donald Lowry to pursue a personal-injury claim arising from a motorcycle accident. After separately dislocating his shoulder, Jones needed surgery from Dr. John Herzog but could not pay. In exchange for treatment, Jones signed a June 14, 1988 letter requesting that Herzog be paid directly from the settlement of the unrelated motorcycle claim.

Herzog notified Irace and Lowry of the assignment, and a firm employee told him it would permit payment of Herzog's bills when the case concluded. Herzog performed the surgery and treated Jones for about a year. When Jones later settled the motorcycle case for $20,000, however, he instructed his attorneys not to pay Herzog directly. The attorneys distributed $10,027 to Jones and the balance to other creditors. Jones's later check to Herzog was returned for insufficient funds.

Herzog sued Irace and Lowry in District Court to enforce the assignment. On stipulated facts, the District Court held that the June 14 letter was a valid assignment enforceable against the attorneys. The Superior Court affirmed in its appellate capacity. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reviewed the District Court decision directly and affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether findings based solely on stipulated facts and documentary evidence are reviewed de novo or only for clear error.

Holding

They are reviewed for clear error, not de novo.

Reasoning

Although Maine once treated appellate and trial courts as equally able to assess a written record and therefore reviewed such findings anew, the Court had more recently abandoned that approach in Estate of Tully. Under the controlling rule, findings resting entirely on stipulated facts and documents are set aside only if clearly erroneous. Irace and Lowry therefore invoked the wrong standard of review.

Issue #2

Whether Jones's June 14, 1988 letter validly assigned to Dr. Herzog part of Jones's future personal-injury settlement proceeds.

Holding

Yes. The letter created a valid and enforceable equitable assignment of settlement proceeds to Herzog.

Reasoning

An assignment occurs when the owner of a right manifests an intent to transfer that right to another. To bind the obligor, the assignor must clearly relinquish the assigned right without retaining control over it or a power to revoke it. The assignment becomes effective through the acts of assignor and assignee; the obligor's acceptance is not required.

Maine permits the assignment of future rights, including expected proceeds from pending litigation, unless the transfer materially alters the obligor's duties or risks or is otherwise restricted by law. An assignment may also cover only part of a future right. This case concerned settlement proceeds, not an attempted assignment of Jones's underlying personal-injury claim.

Read in context, Jones's letter showed an intent to direct settlement funds to Herzog as consideration for necessary shoulder surgery. The word “request” did not preserve a right to revoke the transfer or otherwise retain control over the funds. The absence of a stated dollar amount did not defeat the assignment because the treatment and charges were undisputedly reasonable and necessary.

Once Irace and Lowry received notice, the assigned portion of the settlement was held for Herzog rather than Jones. They could not safely pay that amount to Jones or his other creditors; any such payment was at their peril because Herzog could enforce the assignment directly against them. The attorneys had ample settlement funds to pay all creditors, including Herzog, so the court found no basis to question the assignment's validity.

Issue #3

Whether enforcing Jones's assignment against his attorneys conflicted with their ethical duty to follow his later instruction not to pay Dr. Herzog.

Holding

No. The attorneys had no ethical obligation to disregard a valid assignment at Jones's later direction.

Reasoning

The Maine Bar Rules require lawyers to promptly deliver funds that a client is entitled to receive, but once Jones validly assigned a portion of the settlement to Herzog, Jones was no longer entitled to that portion. Honoring the assignment therefore did not conflict with the lawyers' duty concerning client funds.

The assignment also did not violate the rule barring an attorney from placing a lien on a client's file for a third party. The encumbrance resulted from Jones's own transfer of his settlement rights, not from an attorney-created lien. Because Maine recognizes a client's power to assign proceeds expected from litigation, the attorneys were required to honor that assignment after receiving notice, absent some separate contractual duty not shown in the record.